Scientists speak out against Global Warming Fear Tactics:

[RMNIXON]

Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming


Last updated at 13:33pm on 19th March 2007

Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.

The pair spoke at a conference in Oxford today entitled Making Sense of Weather and Climate and organised by Sense about Science, a scientific trust set up to help dispel the myths surrounding polemic issues such as climate change.

They sparked controversy after saying statements made by the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were not justified.

The AAAS said last month: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

Professor Collier said that while he is not sceptical that such events could happen, it is important to be "honest" about the scientific evidence behind projected future impacts.

He said that while there is "no doubt" that climate change is happening and is to an extent man-made, it is not yet proven by isolated climatic events such as the Boscastle floods.

He said: "I think the AAAS are including everything in one pot and I think there is a time to do it.

"There is always a danger of crying wolf. We have to be careful as scientists that we present the facts and don't exaggerate things because it can undermine credibility in the long term."

Professor Hardaker warned against the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate seen in films such as the 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts terrifying consequences after the melting of the Arctic ice shelf.

Such films, he said, only work to create confusion in the public mind.
"I don't think the way to make people pay attention is to make them afraid about it," he said.

"We have to help them understand it and allow them to make choices - because the impact of climate change is going to mean we have got some quite difficult choices to make both in policy and as members of the public.

"Unless we can understand the science behind it, we can't be expected to get our heads around making these difficult choices."

Presenting events such as the shutting off of the Gulf Stream, creating a cooling effect, and the rise of temperatures together could be "confusing", he said, unless it is made clear that the former is far less likely than the latter.
He said the scientists should avoid being forced to make wild predictions about the future in response to climate change sceptics such as those seen in Channel 4's recent programme, Global Climate Swindle.

He said: "We must be careful not to sensationalise our side of the argument or Hollywoodise the argument otherwise you end up in an ever increasing cycle of claim and counter-claim.

"We have to be clear about what our level of understanding is and to be clear about where we are making judgements based on understanding."
Their comments were backed today by other leading figures in the debate.

Dr Peter Stott, manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said he believes scientists have to make it clear there is a long way to go until we know how bad climate change will be.

He said: "There is a lot more research to do to understand about exactly what effects its going to have on you and me in the future."
He said that while he welcomed a growing public awareness about the dangers brought about by films and headlines, informed debate was vital.

"I think it is important that having said there is a problem, it would be unfortunate if people got the impression that there's nothing we can do about it because there is a lot we can do to change the future of climate change," he said.

Professor Tim Palmer, of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, called for better technology and computers to be developed to help climatologists to predict the future more precisely.

He said: "There are still big scientific uncertainties such as how is the weather going to change with global warming.

"My personal view is that we do need to start thinking in an international way."

Tracey Brown is the director of Sense About Science, which has also produced a booklet bringing together key scientists to help explain in layman's terms the main issues in the debate.

She said she "sympathised" with the professors' comments, saying uncertainty can often be "manipulated" to generate outlandish ideas about the issue.
"It's very important for scientists to be clear with the public - we have learned that lesson with many scientific issues," she said.
But she added that it was important not to downplay the potentially "catastrophic" results of climate change.

She said: "The kind of figures were are talking about here today show that weather is already a bigger killer than global terrorism. What seems a small change on a graphic can have catastrophic effects on people's lives.
"It's not shock tactics to talk about it as a killer."

Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming | the Daily Mail


__________________________________________________ _______________

Now before you go off read the above with care. They are not saying global warming is not happening or that there are no man-made contributions. Only that fear mongering hype has entered the debate and left good science behind. In recent months I have heard how Global Warming may become "global heating" and we will fry the whole planet if we are not stopped in the coming decades. Isolated climate events are not good evidence. Fear based prediction models are not good science. And neither is hype about how weather will kill if you made it to the last quotation?

[Pro Street]

I'm going to add to this: those two are research colleagues, essentially coworkers, not two separate scientists.

[ballz2wallz]

Scientists backing off the alarmism associated with global warming

[Pro Street]

You might find this interesting.

The Royal Meteorological Society’s statement on the
Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Fourth Assessment Report
Download statement as pdf

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it.

Carbon Dioxide is such an important greenhouse gas because there is an increasing amount of it in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and it stays in the atmosphere for such a long time; a hundred years or so. The changes were are seeing now in our climate are the result of emissions since industrialisation and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.

What the Fourth Assessment Report is also telling us is that there is still a job for the scientists to do in developing our understanding of what’s happening on the regional and local scale and to advise the politicians more specifically on what levels of emissions we should be aiming to reduce towards and what the associated risks of this are. We need to understand more clearly the impact of the carbon cycle on the changes we expect to see in our environment and we need to use this information to help us plan to adapt to the changes that we will have to face up to.

It is important that Government continues to invest in this science and in the infrastructure to support it. High quality scientific advice depends not just on high quality climate scientists, but also on high quality super-computing resources. The return on this investment is potentially massive. For instance, if we could make improvements to our local climate predictions for the UK such that we were able to reduce the costs of the upgrade to the Thames Barrier by 1%, then we would save £250m of public money – and this is just one of many examples.

It is easy to be negative in the face of all the doom and gloom that surrounds the climate change debate, but it’s a problem that humans are creating and so which humans can tackle. If we are to meet the Government’s long term targets for 2050, it requires short term action – it is what we do in the next ten years that matters.

The proposed Climate Change Bill will be the first time that targets for tackling climate change are formalised in our legislation and offers a real opportunity, not just to think about long term percentage targets, but the more important question of shorter term targets for reducing the accumulation of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – the Royal Meteorological Society will be pressing the Government hard on this issue.

We cannot rely on technological changes and new methods of energy supply to solve all the problems on these timescales. They are clearly part of the solution, but we also need to address energy demand. It really isn’t an insurmountable problem and individuals need not feel powerless when tackling the problem of climate change.

It might seem a difficult global problem that only countries like the US and China can resolve. They are clearly part of the solution, and attitudes in both these countries are changing, but people across the UK and Europe can also make a significant difference. The moral argument is a powerful one in its own right and it is hard to expect others to act if we are not prepared to do so ourselves; but there is also an economic rationale. Aside from the economics of the Stern Report, which states that the cost of mitigating climate impacts are 1% of GDP compared to the 5-20% of GDP through not acting, there is an opportunity for the UK to show that it is possible to have economic growth and a reduced-carbon economy. This can only happen if businesses and the community at large take action.

The Royal Meteorological Society has set itself the target of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions to at least meet UK targets of a 20% by 2010. We are asking others, such as businesses and the public everywhere, not just to sit back and see what happens, but to join us in meeting this challenge and to share with us successes and innovative solutions.

It sounds very trite to say it, but we are only custodians of our planet for the generations that follow us. We should take care to manage our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Professor Paul Hardaker
Chief Executive

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Now before you go off read the above with care. They are not saying global warming is not happening or that there are no man-made contributions. Only that fear mongering hype has entered the debate and left good science behind. In recent months I have heard how Global Warming may become "global heating" and we will fry the whole planet if we are not stopped in the coming decades. Isolated climate events are not good evidence. Fear based prediction models are not good science. And neither is hype about how weather will kill if you made it to the last quotation?

I don't think anyone here envisions the Day After Tomorrow.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I don't think anyone here envisions the Day After Tomorrow.

Al Gore gave us a time limit of 10 yrs

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Al Gore gave us a time limit of 10 yrs

what does at have to do with anyone other than Al Gore?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

what does at have to do with anyone other than Al Gore?

Learn to take a joke, son!

A quick guide to learning when something is said in good humor:

1) learn to pay attention to smilies such as , , , , , etc...it usually means the posts are semi-serious.

2) never forget 1)

3) always show me love

[Pro Street]

I can take a joke, but not an unfunny one




see, that was one

[Thorgrim]

"Fear models" not found in source posted

[Roonie]

I quote directly from original article as the researchers agree on this premis;

"He said that while there is "no doubt" that climate change is happening and is to an extent man-made"

At least they agree on this main part. I think the article does have some merit about the amount of fear mongering and how it affects our daily lives.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I don't think anyone here envisions the Day After Tomorrow.

That is not the only issue.

For example the IPCC report that is being worshiped predicts 23 Inches of increased sea level in coming decades. The Gore Movie predicts 20 FEET!

One person here suggested Florida would be underwater in no time. That is what they are talking about. People who blindly believe this stuff when someone in Hollywood says or repeats it.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Scientists backing off the alarmism associated with global warming

I am asking Moderators to merge.....

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is not the only issue.

For example the IPCC report that is being worshiped predicts 23 Inches of increased sea level in coming decades. The Gore Movie predicts 20 FEET!

One person here suggested Florida would be underwater in no time. That is what they are talking about. People who blindly believe this stuff when someone in Hollywood says or repeats it.

No, Gore does not "predict" 20 feet anymore than a weather forecaster says "there's an uncertain chance of rain tommorow, if it does, it will be wet" Oh he just predicted it'll be wet tommorow!

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, Gore does not "predict" 20 feet anymore than a weather forecaster says "there's an uncertain chance of rain tommorow, if it does, it will be wet" Oh he just predicted it'll be wet tommorow!

defending gore....

[Pro Street]

Gore is not a meteorologist, he is not treated as one amongst the community, etc, etc.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Gore is not a meteorologist, he is not treated as one amongst the community, etc, etc.

Then why is he the spokesperson of GW?

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Then why is he the spokesperson of GW?

Spokesperson maybe, maybe not ......... he definately is making money off of it with his movie.